Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.29 seconds)Parry Confectinery Ltd., Madras vs Government Of India And Ors. on 1 January, 1800
(a) Parrys Confectionary Ltd., Madras v. Government of India reported in 1980 E.L.T. 468. In this case item No. 1A of the First Schedule to the said Act was considered and construed by the Madras High Court. This item reads as follows :
Chemicals And Fibres India Limited vs Union Of India And Others on 25 June, 1982
(b) Chemicals and Fibres India Limited v. Union of India reported in 1982 E.L.T. 917. In this case the matter in controversy was whether polyester chips of textiles, when manufactured, was assessable to excise duty under item 15A of the First Schedule to the said Act. The taid item reads as follows :
Bhola Nath Mitter vs Emperor on 3 January, 1924
It was contended on behalf of the assessee that the said item was restricted and limited to the articles specifically mentioned there. The High Court construed the said item and held that the word "namely" had various shades and meanings depending on the context and the intent in which it was used. Following Stroud's Judicial Dictionary, 3rd Edition and Webster's International Dictionary it was held that the word "namely" meant "including" or "by name" or "that is to say" and that in the description of goods, the articles mentioned after the word "namely" were meant to be illustrations of the goods intended to be included in the general description of electric lighting fittings and were not exhaustive. The High Court noted that in Bhola Prasad v. Emperor reported in AIR 1942 FC 17 where the Federal Court held that the expression "that is to say" only explained and illustrated but did not limit the words preceding the expression. It was held that electric lamp holders were eligible to duty under the said item.
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
The Central Excise Act, 1944
Ajanta Electricals vs Collector Central Excise And Ors. on 25 May, 1981
The learned Advocate for the respondents, in support of two contentions, cited a judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court dated the 25th May, 1981, passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 4552 of 1979 entitled Ajanta Electricals v. Collector of Central Excise. This has been reported in 'Centex', Vol. XVIII, No. 13.
1